sw1mushfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Imperial Military Reform Policy
I find it absolutely amazing that you wait exactly one year to remove that. If you look under the history tab, and go to the February 2007 date, you would see that, at the end, TIE Avenger is listed there. Yet you said absolutely nothing of it. In 14 ABY, I was pushing for major reforms ICly - I introduced the ST-III, I phased out the old Mark I, and I pushed heavily for the production of TIE Avengers, going as far as to create the stats for them and sending them to Minkar/Cypher. It would appear as if those stats were put to good use, as the stats I created are practically identical - only alteration being a -1 pip to fire control for the missiles and a slightly improved sensor range. And I was ICly pushing for Avengers, because they did exist ICly. And, in case you didn't know, so do TIE Defenders. They were used ICly (non-coded, naturally) during a battle, with pre-approval from both sides. So please refrain from deleting information that's been here for a year already and isn't wrong. --Danik Kreldin 05:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) *And before you say anything, the TIE Defenders were used when Tyler was FH. So we didn't need your approval for it. --Danik Kreldin 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC) **TIE Defenders shouldn't have been used in any scene as they don't exist. The TIE Avenger in SW1 MUSH cannon was a dead technology line and that is what the Avenger article reflects. Also the idea for replacing the ln and moving the Mk I to reserve status was my initiative, I don't care if you want to make it ICly part of your plan, but if you also remember I played a part in putting together those stats for the Avenger, while you did come up with the base, it has no effect on IC history, nor does it matter as it had nothing to do with the final approval process. I am done fighting with you over your tendency for revisionism. --Korolov 13:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC) *** Oh yeah, you wouldn't need the FH approval to use TIE Defenders in a scene, you would need Minkar's. I assume since you didn't mention her approval you didn't have it. Consider the inclusion of Defenders in a scene retcon'd or consider it a prototype. Either way I don't care. They don't exist without Wizard approval and there has never been wizard approval given to TIE Defenders and/or TIE Avengers until the recent approval of the Avenger, so Defenders still don't exist even as hard as you may wish for them to exist. --Korolov 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) *Well, first off, you have no authority whatsoever to retcon a scene of which you had zero involvement in. If you want to retcon it, then bring it up with Minkar or whoever, and then talk it out with her, Tyler, Johanna and Gabrielle, all the involved parties; I was actually just NPCing for them to fulfill their story arc involving Sonja, some three or so years ago, and we decided to use TIE Defenders. If you want it to be a prototype, which makes perfect sense given the NPCs used (Tyler's personal elite guard), then go for it. But you see, from what I recall of MUSH policy, you don't need Wizard/RPA approval for a non-coded thing if all players involved agree to it. Hence no prior authorization was sought, especially given the fact that in 2004 or so no one assumed Defenders were not canon, just not coded; I believe that's something you pursued in your tenure as FH, because it certainly wasn't the case in the previous administration. But if you really want to make a major case about it, then speak to Minkar, have her talk to me, Tyler, and the rest, and we can come to a reasonable conclusion. Secondly, I participated in no revisionism with this article. It's over a year old now, and the line about TIE Avengers was here from the beginning, and you had no problem with it then. Furthermore, how is the updated version incorrect? In 14 ABY, I was vigorously pursuing mass-production of TIE Avengers, ICly and OOCly. ICly I discussed Avengers in scenes with other characters, my desire to have them on the frontlines, and on the OOC front I created the stats for them and pushed hard for them to be coded. In fact, I still have the stat sheets I created in a .zip file in my MUSH folder, which also included stats for the Defender, the new X-wing now being used, E-wings, and new capital ships, all of which I sent out to all the involved parties. Apparently the Avenger and the advanced X-wing were used. But it fell through; nothing ever came of it. Hence, as the article suggests, Danik pursued production of Avengers but it never came through. However, now they are being produced, so I updated the article to show that while I failed back then, the Avengers are now in production by whichever means (Rellik finding them on Teta, whatever, irrelevant for this article). So how is the passage in any which means wrong or revisionist? As for the TIE Fighters being phased out, that was your OOC initiative. But this is for IC happenings. If you recall a certain article you wrote on IGNews by your alt, who was head of KDYSFS, you wrote something along the lines of Grand Admiral Kreldin issuing his directive to allow TIE Fighters to be sold to the public and ending its military career, and pumping up production and deployment of Mark IIs in favor of the old Interceptors. So that became IC, and that was your own doing. If you hadn't wrote that and included me, then I would have had nothing to do it; you could have easily used Warlord Korolov, but you used Danik, because at the time I was head of the military and it made sense story-wise. Hence its inclusion in this article. The ST-IIIs are no problem, I'm sure. I came up with the idea, I created the stats for them, and I pushed them through the RPA (even though it took a very long time), along with the E-web, glop and cryobans, and a few other token weapons. So I took that, your TIE initiative which you attributed to me, and my desire to have Avengers, all of which happened in a very close timeframe, and created this article to reflect the happenings in the Imperial military after the Blitzkrieg and the attempts to modernize aging Imperial equipment. --Danik Kreldin 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ***MUSH policy clearly states what is considered canon, the TIE Fighter video games are not in that list and never have been. Therefore anything from the video games has to be approved by the MUSH Administration (re. Wizards). TIE Defenders have never been approved, therefore they are not canon, therefore they don't exist. Not even the consent of all the parties involved can get around this rule. If the ships were approved but not coded, then yeah, you could RP having them if everybody agreed to it, but that is not the case here, TIE Defenders have never been approved, they are not from an approved source therefore they don't exist. This rule has been in place since before you played there and is still in place today. I don't have to hold any discussion with Minkar to 'fix' history. You were in error to RP with them in the first place, it can be 'retconned' into being some other type of ship or single prototypes that were later destroyed/rendered inoperable, that is up to the parties involved to clarify, however the existence of the Defender is not.The TIE Avenger holds the same status, or it did until the initiative to have them made canon. The story given here is the one approved by Minkar for their existence, so again, your RP is in error as the Avenger was a dead technology line (Sort of like the XB-70 Valkyrie). It is possible that Danik /might/ have heard of it back in the time before the MUSH went live, but as the article states, the only surviving production model was squirreled away with the design data in a secret vault, so he would have had nothing to champion, there were no production models or designs to build (for the Defender or Avenger). I have no problem with taking IC credit for the ln and mk I. The only problem I have with the ST-III is that it never really entered service till after Danik was already dead, I have not gotten around to updating it's page yet, but it is on my to-do list. --Korolov 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)